2005 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report Prepared by: City Manager’s Office Executive Management Division 2005 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report Table of Contents Section Page Reference Overview 1-2 How to Interpret Summaries and Charts in the Report 3-7 Overall Summary of Results Internal Comparison 8 - 9 External Comparison 9 - 13 Consolidated Summary of Toronto’s Results by Service Area 14-31 Detailed Results and Charts by Service Area 1. Child Care Services 32 - 37 2. Court /POA Services 38 - 44 3. Emergency Medical Services 45 - 48 4. Fire Services 49 - 58 5. Governance and Corporate Management 59 - 60 6. Hostel Services 61 - 65 7. Library Services 66 - 72 8. Long Term Care/Homes for the Aged Services 73 - 77 9. Police Services 78 - 87 10. Road/Transportation Services 88 - 95 11. Social Assistance Services 96 - 102 12. Social Housing Services 103 - 107 13. Solid Waste Management Services 108 - 114 14. Sports and Recreation Services 115 - 125 15. Transit Services 126 - 131 16. Wastewater Services 132 - 139 17. Water Services 140 -147 2005 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report OVERVIEW In January 2007, the fifteen municipalities that comprise the Ontario Municipal CAOs Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) jointly released the OMBI 2005 Performance Benchmarking Report (OMBI Joint Report). The results presented in that document reflect the joint efforts of 15 municipalities representing more than 9.1 million residents or 72% of Ontario’s population. It is a collaboration among municipalities that is unprecedented in North America. The OMBI Joint Report highlighted twelve service areas and has strengthened accountability and enhanced the level of transparency in the way performance measures are reported in municipalities. OMBI has developed standardized methodologies to collect consistent performance information to ensure results are as comparable as possible between municipalities. This includes: Detailed technical definitions for each performance measure. Costing methodologies based on the Financial Information Return (FIR). A methodology to allocate program support costs (such as Human Resources and Information & Technology) to operating programs. In this way differences in organizational structure (centralized, de-centralized or mixed program support models) are not a factor in the comparison of costs. Identification of factors that can influence municipal results for each measure. A web-based data warehouse used to collect and share information. This report focuses on Toronto’s 2005 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Results and builds on the Joint OMBI Report, by: Including additional performance measures in the twelve service areas covered in the Joint OMBI Report. Expanding the number of service areas included from twelve to seventeen. The ranking of Toronto’s results in relation to the other municipalities, to assist in determining how well Toronto is doing. Providing up to six years of Toronto’s historical data, to better understand trends in our own internal service levels and performance. Toronto’s Internal Comparison of Historical Results Toronto is unique among Ontario municipalities because of its size and its role as the centre of business, culture, entertainment, sporting and provincial and international governance activities in the Greater Toronto Area. Approximately 19.7 million tourists visited Toronto in 2005 and there is an estimated daily influx of 356,000 non-resident vehicles entering the City from surrounding regions during the morning rush hours, in addition to non-residents entering the City through public transit. All of these factors pose special demands on Toronto’s municipal services. Even our largest single-tier municipal comparators within Ontario, such as Hamilton and Ottawa, have a significant rural component that Toronto does not. Overview 1 2005 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report The most accurate comparison for any municipality to undertake is to examine one’s own year-over-year performance and longer-term historical trends. This report therefore provides up to six years of historical data that can be used to identify internal trends in Toronto’s service levels and performance measures. Any cost-based measures for Toronto included in this report, will differ from those that may have been reported in Toronto’s budget documents. In order to compare Toronto’s costs to other municipalities, all municipalities follow a standard costing methodology which includes the allocation of program support costs such as Human Resources and Information and Technology. For the purposes of consistency, Toronto’s historical costs included in this report have also been determined on the same basis, unless a specific data source has been noted. To take into consideration the impact of inflation, where appropriate, costs have also been provided that adjust for changes in Toronto’s Consumer Price Index (CPI). External Comparison of Toronto’s 2005 Results to Other OMBI Municipalities Despite the unique characteristics of Toronto, there is also value in making comparisons of performance measurement results to other municipalities. In order to determine Toronto’s ranking relative to other municipalities, OMBI data has been sorted according to what would be considered the most desirable result. This is not intended to make inferences on the service levels or performance of other municipalities but has been done only to determine Toronto’s position relative to other municipalities and provide context for Toronto’s results. Each of the OMBI municipalities have factors that influence their results, therefore it would be unfair to interpret or make conclusions about the efficiency or effectiveness of their operations without that understanding. Other Ways of Assessing Toronto’s Performance This report focuses on performance measurement results in specific service areas, however it is by no means the only type of reporting done by Toronto in this area. There are also other report card initiatives or monitoring reports that are produced on a periodic basis such as: Quality of Life Reporting through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) The Toronto Report Card on Children The Toronto Report Card on Housing and Homelessness Toronto Health Status Reports on Economic Indicators This report is also centred on results that can be quantified, however there are a number of qualitative factors, such as achievements or innovative initiatives currently being piloted, that are not captured in these results. In the past three years for example, Toronto has won more than 50 awards for quality and innovation in delivering public services. This information is equally as important and must also be considered in any evaluation. Overview 2 2005 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report Internal and External Comparison of Toronto’s Results Toronto’s performance measurement results can be examined from two perspectives: Internal comparison – comparing Toronto’s historical performance measurement results over a period of years and identifying trends for: Service Levels - the amount of resources devoted to providing the service or the units of service provided Results – measures related to the efficiency and effectiveness (customer service or community impact) of operations External comparison – comparing Toronto’s 2005 performance measurement results to other Ontario municipalities under the Ontario Municipal CAOs Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) for: Service Levels - the amount of resources devoted to providing the service or the units of service provided Results – measures related to the efficiency and effectiveness (customer service or community impact) of operations Description of Quartile Results for External Comparisons of Toronto to OMBI Municipalities When comparing Toronto’s performance measurement results externally to other Ontario municipalities, results have been sorted from would be considered as the most desirable result to the least desirable result. The median (middle) result is identified and Toronto’s result is placed in the appropriate quartile, with a quartile dividing the municipal results into quarters. The first/top quartile, represents municipalities falling within the top 25% of the results. The second quartile includes municipalities falling within 26% to 50% of the sample meaning they are still better than, or at the median value. Results falling in the third or fourth quartile are below the median. The third quartile includes municipalities falling within 51% to 75% of the sample and the fourth/bottom representing municipalities falling within the bottom 76% to 100% of the sample. The example in figure 1 below, provides an illustration of medians and quartiles using a set of nine numbers. Figure 1 Median (middle) Municipal Result 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 st 1 (top) quartile 2nd quartile 3rd quartile 4th (bottom) quartile (1% to 25% of (26% to 50% of (51% to 75% of (76% to 100% of municipalities) municipalities municipalities) municipalities) including median) How to Interpret the Summaries and Charts in This Report 3 2005 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report The quartiles have also been associated with a colour scheme. The two shades of green (the 1st and 2nd quartiles) represent: For service level indicators – service levels or resources higher than the median For efficiency, customer service and community impact measures - results better than the median The colours of yellow (3rd quartile) and red (4th or bottom quartile) represent: For